I don't think it's very impressive at all. They've been bragging constantly about how they would be the fastest browser ever, and all they did was to barely catch up?
When Opera released the new JIT engine, Carakan, it was well ahead of the rest with the first public release. No bragging and empty claims beforehand. Just actually delivering on performance. Mozilla, on the other hand, is still mostly talking and bragging...
When no one cared about JS performance, the Open Source crowd was king
I'm afraid that isn't quite accurate. Opera was the performance king, and it peaked at 9.5 when it was so much faster than everyone else, Safari included, that Apple decided they needed to do something different. That's when they started work on JavaScript JIT.
Opera was always the fastest, and with the new Carakan and Vega engines, it's currently tied with or a little bit ahead of Chrome.
No, but a large majority of Slashdot readers did come to Reiser's defense, usually by calling his wife anything from a mail-order-bride gold-digger to a child kidnapper.
He's right, though. You did an experiment, but so what? They may have lied to you about the outcome of the experiment. You trusted them when they said that "if this happens, it's confirmed."
But it doesn't change the fact even if I have a subjective rule set, if I am the one being judged, I do not get to make objective statements about myself even if I had potential to be objective.
I really don't understand the relevance. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion about absolute morality.
Morality isn't that different, if such a thing as absolute morality is out there, which I believe it is.
That is just a belief. There is no evidence that absolute morality exists. And isn't it a bit odd for someone who claims to publish in scientific journals to not hold all his thought to the same standards? You accept that evidence is required in one case, but not the other?
I think the point was that someone from 4chan who calls himself "old" or claims to be a veteran, is really just a newbie. 4chan is a pretty recent thing in internet time.
That's an excellent question, why do we *need* absolute morality? I don't claim great wisdom, but one use for absolute morality might be to avoid confusion as well as mediate between self-interested parties with competing definitions of morality.
I'm sure absolute morality would be great (or would it?), and so would peace on earth and all that. But we have to live in the real world.
Within argument, I think we need absolute definitions inasmuch as we want to make absolute statements such as: X is always true. I assume atheists are making absolute statements when they make arguments against God, but perhaps all they really mean is, "For all I can see, there is no God." If that is the case, I would be interested to know, because making such a definitive statement would require a certain amount of omniscience attributed only to you-know-who (not Lord Voldemort).
All that is required is that there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god, but in fact there is a whole lot of evidence against the monotheistic god(s). That said, even Richard Dawkins has said that he is open to actual evidence of God's existence, so he places himself on a 6 on his scale from 1-7 where 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute rejection of the existence of God. Dawkins prefers to see where the evidence points.
My definition of absolute morality; however, is based on what God considers "good" or "evil", not as we prefer it. I readily admit though that understanding what God precisely means by righteousness takes up the better half of religious study, and failure to understand Him (or listen) has resulted in people doing dastardly things in His name.
People can't even agree on how to interpret the bible (the claimed word of God). So even if he did exist, we wouldn't be even close to absolute morality on earth. Everyone would be fighting over what God tells them to do. And in fact, lots of people are already doing that, and blowing each other up in the name of their version of the deity.
My proposition was focussed on the observation that we seek objectivity in judgement.
So? We can try to make the judgment objective (does the person violate the rules), but the rules/morals are entirly subective. For example, if the rule is "it is wrong to kill", that rule is subjective. But the judging will be objective: Did he kill? If yes, then he is guilty of violating the subjective rule.
Why is it easier for us to look back in history and see that what people were doing seemed wrong and dastardly? We judge them by our moral values--rightly or wrongly but perhaps more quickly than with ourselves.
Exactly! Times change, and morals with them. My point exactly. They are subjective. No such thing as objective morals.
How is the quality better? The models look better? The images are more professional?
A lot of people actually prefer amateur porn. The models are everyday girls, and the images may be hit and miss, but a lot find it to be much better than the professional stuff.
if you see something as bad, morally speaking, but I can define bad myself subjectively, then the bad that is meaningful to you won't necessarily be so to me
Indeed! Why do you think some people think, for example, Israel's blockade of Gaza is justified, while others think it's unjustifiable? Because these things are subject to each person's opinion! There is no objective morality to judge Israel's actions on. It all depends on what you personally find to be important. Someone who defends the blockade might say that Israel's right to defend itself means that it's right to maintain the blockade, even if it leads to some suffering for civilians. Someone who disagrees with the blockade might say that as long as civilians suffer at all, it is completely unacceptable.
If we agree on some definition of badness, it will have some meaning to both of us but perhaps not a third person.
Indeed. But a lot of the time we won't even agree on something being good or bad. I might tell you that your claimed god's genocides are bad, but you might say that it's all justifiable for some reason you choose to accept.
For your statement to have cultural meaning we need a cultural definition of badness (for our people).
Even people within the same culture won't agree on what's good and bad.
For your statement to have absolute meaning, we need an absolute definition of badness (for all times).
For what statement to have absolute meaning? Why do we need an absolute definition of "badness"?
Which kind of badness are you appealing to? If I adopt your definition of morality, your calling God bad may indeed be meaningful to me; but for logical proof, it is "meaningless" because of it's subjectivity.
Saying that the god you believe in is bad is just a way to show you that maybe you think your beliefs lead to good, but the actions of your claimed god show otherwise.
I don't deny the rhetorical value of your statement if we happen to share our definitions of badness, but the argument doesn't escape its own subjectivity.
The point here is that if your moral code is just a preference or a construct, you can have opinions about it but your angry feelings are silly and irrational under your own assumption.
No they aren't. I can hold my own opinions about right and wrong, and become angry if someone does something I consider to be wrong. That doesn't mean that my opinions are universal or objective. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real.
however, if you want those opinions to have meaning and choose to use them in arguments, then you have to presuppose something is true. If you presuppose morality is a construct, then God's offenses are meaningless
God doesn't exist, so he didn't do any offensive acts. However, we can read the fairy tale about his actions, and judge the made up story about God. Just like we can judge the imaginary actions of characters in a Harry Potter book.
so a more direct route would be to prove your assumption that morality is a construct instead, not that "God is bad" which you assume to be meaningless
No, I don't assume "bad" to be meaningless. I am pointing out that it is subjective. And if an imaginary being does something in a fairy tale I think is bad, I can point out how I think it is bad. And that means that if you do indeed believe that the fairy tale is true, then the imaginary being you blindly believe in has committed acts I find to be bad.
The idea of axiom, as you well know, is to accept something as true and work out the consequences based upon those primary assumptions. This has nothing to do with circular reasoning but taking each idea and following it to its logical end.
And you are using circular arguments to try to "prove" that God did it, and morals are objective, which they are clearly not.
As to my appeal to objectivity, an atheist can either accept that self-judging one's own moral goodness is either valid (relative morality only) or invalid (in the case of either kind of morality). If you suppose it is valid to judge oneself morally then we have nothing to discuss because you have perfect faith in your own objectivity.
What on earth are you talking about? Self-judging? What is that supposed to mean?
However, if we take self-judging to be invalid and need something outside of ourselves to judge us, then railing against God for judging humanity as a group is by definition invalid since such railing fails the objectivity test.
Are you retarded? Someone who does not believe in God cannot rail against God. That would be utterly pointless. However, he can rail against your blind belief in a fairy tale. The fairy tale exists even if the imaginary being doesn't.
If this framework is just a construct, as an atheist should suppose, then why call God unjust, it's just a construct?
Because the atheist thinks God, the fantasy figure being described, is unjust, as per the atheist's moral code. Just like you can look at a movie with a fictional story and hold opinions on the actions of the fictional characters therein.
If the framework is absolute, then you are presupposing God exists and then trying to disprove Him by it.
You don't need absolute morality to have opinions about what you think is good or bad.
When it comes down to moral reasoning, a subject (like humanity) lacks the objectivity to define its own moral goodness or badness whatever the set of rules. Legally, you cannot be judge and witness at once (wait for the/. tangental counterexample that is set +5 insightful). Someone outside you must play the part of judge.
Not at all. Anyone can hold an opinion on anything. If an atheist finds the description of God in the fantasy book call the Bible to be disgusting and immoral, then that's that atheist's opinion and moral stance. No invisible sky-daddy needed.
Your argument is circular, and assumes that God made morality.
Because that's how we evolved. It was an evolutionary advantage, and strengthened the group. Empathy means that members of the group would help each other out, which made them stronger together, and that increased the survival rate of members of the group.
Unfortunately you are talking to a very biased audience here. For many/. types, Julian Assange is a hero.
I personally think he's a dick for the whole "Collateral Murder" nonsense. However, I do like what WikiLeaks is doing, and this whole case seems to have more holes than a dozen Titanics.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Opera's JS engine is faster than V8.
When Opera released the new JIT engine, Carakan, it was well ahead of the rest with the first public release. No bragging and empty claims beforehand. Just actually delivering on performance. Mozilla, on the other hand, is still mostly talking and bragging...
I'm afraid that isn't quite accurate. Opera was the performance king, and it peaked at 9.5 when it was so much faster than everyone else, Safari included, that Apple decided they needed to do something different. That's when they started work on JavaScript JIT.
Opera was always the fastest, and with the new Carakan and Vega engines, it's currently tied with or a little bit ahead of Chrome.
Mozilla, honest? Heh. They've been spewing FUD and lies about Opera for years, for example.
[citation needed]
She is not afforded that benefit if Assange isn't. If he is, then she is.
Climate experts are actual experts in an actual field. Comparing that to quacks who just claim to be experts is pretty insane.
They did? What authoritative sources might that have been?
He's right, though. You did an experiment, but so what? They may have lied to you about the outcome of the experiment. You trusted them when they said that "if this happens, it's confirmed."
Are you going to address the reply from the AC or what?
I really don't understand the relevance. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion about absolute morality.
That is just a belief. There is no evidence that absolute morality exists. And isn't it a bit odd for someone who claims to publish in scientific journals to not hold all his thought to the same standards? You accept that evidence is required in one case, but not the other?
The difference is that Google is open about it, while Microsoft uses straw companies and paid shills.
I think the point was that someone from 4chan who calls himself "old" or claims to be a veteran, is really just a newbie. 4chan is a pretty recent thing in internet time.
Why are you generalizing? "They" didn't do anything for any specific reason. Different people had different reasons.
I'm sure absolute morality would be great (or would it?), and so would peace on earth and all that. But we have to live in the real world.
All that is required is that there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god, but in fact there is a whole lot of evidence against the monotheistic god(s). That said, even Richard Dawkins has said that he is open to actual evidence of God's existence, so he places himself on a 6 on his scale from 1-7 where 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute rejection of the existence of God. Dawkins prefers to see where the evidence points.
People can't even agree on how to interpret the bible (the claimed word of God). So even if he did exist, we wouldn't be even close to absolute morality on earth. Everyone would be fighting over what God tells them to do. And in fact, lots of people are already doing that, and blowing each other up in the name of their version of the deity.
So? We can try to make the judgment objective (does the person violate the rules), but the rules/morals are entirly subective. For example, if the rule is "it is wrong to kill", that rule is subjective. But the judging will be objective: Did he kill? If yes, then he is guilty of violating the subjective rule.
Exactly! Times change, and morals with them. My point exactly. They are subjective. No such thing as objective morals.
A lot of people actually prefer amateur porn. The models are everyday girls, and the images may be hit and miss, but a lot find it to be much better than the professional stuff.
Indeed! Why do you think some people think, for example, Israel's blockade of Gaza is justified, while others think it's unjustifiable? Because these things are subject to each person's opinion! There is no objective morality to judge Israel's actions on. It all depends on what you personally find to be important. Someone who defends the blockade might say that Israel's right to defend itself means that it's right to maintain the blockade, even if it leads to some suffering for civilians. Someone who disagrees with the blockade might say that as long as civilians suffer at all, it is completely unacceptable.
Indeed. But a lot of the time we won't even agree on something being good or bad. I might tell you that your claimed god's genocides are bad, but you might say that it's all justifiable for some reason you choose to accept.
Even people within the same culture won't agree on what's good and bad.
For what statement to have absolute meaning? Why do we need an absolute definition of "badness"?
Saying that the god you believe in is bad is just a way to show you that maybe you think your beliefs lead to good, but the actions of your claimed god show otherwise.
Huh?
What difference does it make? You can judge yourself all you want, but people with power will also judge you. No god needed.
No they aren't. I can hold my own opinions about right and wrong, and become angry if someone does something I consider to be wrong. That doesn't mean that my opinions are universal or objective. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real.
God doesn't exist, so he didn't do any offensive acts. However, we can read the fairy tale about his actions, and judge the made up story about God. Just like we can judge the imaginary actions of characters in a Harry Potter book.
No, I don't assume "bad" to be meaningless. I am pointing out that it is subjective. And if an imaginary being does something in a fairy tale I think is bad, I can point out how I think it is bad. And that means that if you do indeed believe that the fairy tale is true, then the imaginary being you blindly believe in has committed acts I find to be bad.
And you are using circular arguments to try to "prove" that God did it, and morals are objective, which they are clearly not.
What on earth are you talking about? Self-judging? What is that supposed to mean?
Are you retarded? Someone who does not believe in God cannot rail against God. That would be utterly pointless. However, he can rail against your blind belief in a fairy tale. The fairy tale exists even if the imaginary being doesn't.
Because the atheist thinks God, the fantasy figure being described, is unjust, as per the atheist's moral code. Just like you can look at a movie with a fictional story and hold opinions on the actions of the fictional characters therein.
You don't need absolute morality to have opinions about what you think is good or bad.
Not at all. Anyone can hold an opinion on anything. If an atheist finds the description of God in the fantasy book call the Bible to be disgusting and immoral, then that's that atheist's opinion and moral stance. No invisible sky-daddy needed.
Your argument is circular, and assumes that God made morality.
Because that's how we evolved. It was an evolutionary advantage, and strengthened the group. Empathy means that members of the group would help each other out, which made them stronger together, and that increased the survival rate of members of the group.
I personally think he's a dick for the whole "Collateral Murder" nonsense. However, I do like what WikiLeaks is doing, and this whole case seems to have more holes than a dozen Titanics.
Why are you mindlessly parroting denialist lies and talking points?